- Home
- News & insights
- Insights
- Failure to prevent fraud offence to come into force in September 2025
14 November 2024
Disputes Quick Read – 6 of 102 Insights
Failure to prevent fraud offence to come into force in September 2025
- Quick read
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 was passed in October 2023 and introduced a new corporate criminal offence of "failure to prevent fraud". However, the offence is not yet live and we have been waiting for the Home Office to publish guidance on the new offence and confirm when it will come into force.
There is a defence to the offence if an organisation can show that it had in place reasonable procedures to prevent fraud. The notice period is designed to give impacted organisations time to review and implement appropriate prevention procedures to address their organisation's fraud risk. The guidance came out last week (at the start of November 2024 – see here) and confirms that the new offence will come into force on 1 September 2025.
The offence
Our previous article here provides a summary of the new offence and to whom it applies. To recap, a relevant body is guilty of an offence if a person associated with the body commits a fraud offence intending to benefit, directly or indirectly, the relevant body or any person to whom the associate provides services on behalf of the relevant body.
Large organisations are "relevant bodies", and this covers corporations and partnerships which have two out of three of (1) over 250 employees; (2) turnover of £36 million or more; (3) assets of £18 million or more.
The defence – reasonable procedures to prevent fraud
There is a defence if the organisation can show that it has reasonable procedures in place to prevent fraud. The newly published guidance sets out the key principles which organisations should be informed by when putting those procedures in place. They are:
- top level commitment
- risk assessment
- proportionate risk-based prevention procedures
- due diligence
- communication (including training)
- monitoring and review.
Key points from the guidance
The guidance bears many similarities to the guidance issued in relation to the Bribery Act 2010's "failure to prevent bribery" offence and the Criminal Finances Act 2017's "failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion" offence, making the new offence the third corporate "failure to prevent" offence in the UK.
The guidance encourages organisations to consider the three elements of the fraud triangle in assessing risk: opportunity, motive and rationalisation, eg an associated person might commit fraud if there are weak controls/inadequate oversight (opportunity), they have financial stress and pressure to meet targets (motive) and they consider that no real harm is caused by committing the fraud (rationalisation). It also notes that emerging technologies such as AI might open new opportunities for fraud. It is vital that relevant organisations are alive to this and keep such possibilities under review, but equally such technologies may be employed to assist with the implementation and monitoring of fraud risks.
Key points to note:
- the board of directors, partners and senior management of a relevant body should be committed to preventing associated persons from committing fraud and fostering a culture which makes it clear that fraud will not be tolerated
- that position should be clearly communicated and articulated, and the organisation should identify the key individuals and departments with responsibility for the development and implementation of fraud prevention procedures
- relevant organisations should have a fraud prevention plan in place which should be supported by a risk assessment
- the risk assessment should assess and document the nature and extent of its exposure to the risk of employees, agents and other associated persons committing fraud - this should be kept under regular review
- the fraud prevention plan should be proportionate to the risks faced by the organisation and the potential impact. In some limited circumstances it may be reasonable not to introduce measures in relation to a particular risk but that should be carefully documented
- relevant bodies should clearly set out the consequences for those associated with the relevant body for breaching the policy on fraud and this may include contractual clauses where appropriate (so out of scope organisations that provide services for or on behalf of organisations who are in scope may be required to give contractual commitments to observe/implement suitable procedures)
- relevant bodies should commit to allocating a reasonable and proportionate budget for the leadership, staffing and implementation of a fraud prevention plan and training and should ensure those practices are sustained if/when key members of staff are on annual leave, off work or when they leave the organisation
- due diligence should be undertaken in relation to persons who perform or will perform services for or on behalf of the organisation in order to mitigate identified fraud risks which might include appropriate use of third-party risk management tools/screening tools and including appropriate obligations in contracts to require compliance
- organisations should monitor and review their fraud detection and prevention procedures and make improvements where necessary.
Other points to note
The guidance provides some broader commentary on how the offence will operate in practice including:
- Application of "large organisation criteria":
(i) The guidance makes it clear that the large organisation criteria apply to the whole organisation, so subsidiaries will be considered when counting number of employees, turnover and assets, regardless of where the organisation is headquartered or where the subsidiaries are located.
(ii) It also notes that the subsidiary of a large organisation, which is not itself a large organisation, would be caught and can be prosecuted (rather than the parent co) if an employee of the subsidiary commits a fraud intending to benefit the subsidiary. The parent co which is a large organisation could be prosecuted if an employee of a subsidiary commits a fraud that is intended to benefit the parent co. The parent is not responsible for frauds not intended to benefit the parent organisation. - Territorial scope: it was already clear that the offence would have extra-territorial scope. The guidance gives additional clarity - there has to be a UK nexus meaning that one of the acts that was part of the underlying fraud has to take place in the UK or the gain/loss has to occur in the UK, but that could cover over-seas organisations where an employee or associated person commits a relevant fraud offence in the UK or targets UK based victims. It would not apply where a UK organisation has an overseas employee or subsidiary which commits fraud abroad with no UK nexus.
- Scope of the "intention to benefit":
(i) the offence can apply where the primary motivation was self-benefit but it will also benefit the organisation (eg where a commission will be earned)
(i) the benefit can be financial or non-financial – disadvantaging a competitor would be in scope
(iii) it is irrelevant that the intended benefit was not actually secured – it is enough that there was an intention to benefit the organisation. - Overlap with other offences: the failure to prevent fraud offence includes cheating the public revenue – the base offence overlaps with the failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion offence but note that the failure to prevent fraud offence is wider in scope in terms of who can commit the offence so the procedures in place for preventing the criminal facilitation of tax evasion may not be sufficient on their own for that offence. Organisations need to review this.
- Overlap with existing regulation: there may be overlap with other regulations eg financial reporting, environmental, health and safety or competition but organisations should be very careful about relying on any procedures in place to comply with other regulations as a defence to a failure to prevent fraud offence – a careful assessment has to be done regarding any such measures to determine whether they would be sufficient to prevent the fraud risks identified in the organisation's risk assessment.
It is helpful to now have clarity regarding the time frame for the offence going live, so large organisations should make sure they prepare and review/adopt suitable fraud prevention procedures ahead of 1 September 2025. Please get in touch if you would like assistance.
In this series
Collective actions impacting big tech - Ireland set to test the boundaries in ICCL v Microsoft
11 June 2025
Wirral Council v Indivior plc: Court of Appeal upholds strike out of opt-in representative action securities claim
30 January 2025
What are the litigation trends in 2025?
22 January 2025
by Multiple authors
Changes to the privilege rules between companies and shareholders
6 December 2024
Victory for energy companies/defeat for the environment?
14 November 2024
Failure to prevent fraud offence to come into force in September 2025
14 November 2024
by Emma Allen
Essex Cricket Club charged by Cricket Regulator
30 October 2024
by Multiple authors
UK introduces mandatory reimbursement rules to combat APP fraud
15 October 2024
New SFO Director announces bold plans to tackle fraud
21 March 2024
by Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
First of its kind judicial guidance on the use of AI in the courts
14 December 2023
Witness familiarisation - does it affect the court's assessment of witness credibility?
13 December 2023
The use of AI in Trial Witness Statements post-PD 57AC
23 October 2023
by Multiple authors
CAT to hear the first application for a collective settlement approval order
17 October 2023
Pre-Action Protocols – what is different?
12 September 2023
by Tom Charnley
Failure to prevent fraud – a new offence?
14 August 2023
by Multiple authors
Supreme Court rules that APP fraud victims cannot rely on Quincecare Duty
4 August 2023
by Multiple authors
The Law Commission's Consultation Process on the Arbitration Act 1996 – taking stock
21 July 2023
What does the latest decision of the CAT in the Mastercard/Visa proceedings mean for class actions?
10 July 2023
Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth refused permission to pursue directors of Shell
1 June 2023
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read – developments in the fixed costs regime
3 May 2023
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Service by email – are the rules any clearer?
20 April 2023
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Breaking the north/south divide?
5 April 2023
by Tom Charnley
Disputes Quick Read - What do practitioners think about making alternative dispute resolution (ADR) compulsory?
8 March 2023
Disputes Quick Read: What are the litigation trends for 2023?
2 March 2023
Disputes Quick Read: further guidance on witness statement preparation rules
14 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: A cautionary tale – settlement agreement (un)wittingly releases all claims for fraud
13 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: Why the UK should join the Hague Judgments Convention 2019
8 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: extensive information orders granted against crypto exchanges following hack
19 January 2023
Disputes Quick Read: A new approach to giving evidence? WhatsApp with that?
3 October 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Ethereum Merge - what legal issues arise?
22 September 2022
by Ben Jones, Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: New obligations on cryptobusinesses to report under the UK sanctions regime
9 August 2022
by Nick Maday
Disputes Quick Read: Disclosure - What information can be redacted?
25 July 2022
Disputes Quick Read: what claims exist when a smart contract is breached?
6 July 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: New gateway for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28 July 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Defining the duty - the limits of the responsibility assumed by professionals
27 July 2022
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation – successful challenge to government's Net Zero Strategy
29 July 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 – now in force
17 June 2022
Disputes Quick Read: an important reminder of the duty to disclose electronic documents in native format
13 June 2022
Disputes Quick Read: ENRC prevails in claim against former solicitor
26 May 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation update – McGaughey v Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited
31 May 2022
by Multiple authors
Don't lose your keys: Bitcoin developers do not have a duty to assist owners in recovering lost cryptocurrency
4 April 2022
Disputes Quick Read: The new witness statement preparation rules – a year on
5 April 2022
Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth v Shell – climate change litigation shifts focus to UK companies
31 March 2022
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read: High Court rules that failure to provide adequate data security is not a positive act
21 September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Key changes to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme
13 September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Judicial Review and Courts Bill – unpacking the UK government's proposed amendments
6 September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Will litigants be compelled to participate in alternative dispute resolution?
2 August 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Freezing injunctions – maximum custodial sentence imposed for breach
21 July 2021
Disputes Quick Read: The online future of civil justice – the end of the legal profession or the end of legal drudgery?
15 July 2021
by Jess Thomas
Disputes Quick Read: Will the courts change forever post-COVID?
26 May 2021
Disputes Quick Read: One Blackfriars administrators cleared of misfeasance
5 May 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Not your prerogative – the Independent Review of Administrative Law reports its recommendations on judicial review
21 April 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Amendments to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme – a step in the right direction
31 March 2021
Disputes Quick Read: UK Supreme Court rules on the territorial extent of the SFO's powers
26 February 2021
by Tim Strong
Disputes Quick Read: No dropping anchor – parent company liability for environmental claims
24 February 2021
Disputes Quick Read: What lawyers need to know about new witness statement preparation rules
20 January 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Should you still choose the English courts to have jurisdiction in your international contracts after Brexit?
12 January 2021
by Tim Strong
Disputes Quick Read: Privilege lost in the EU post-Brexit (with exceptions)
23 November 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Law on interest applicable to US dollar awards reaffirmed
16 October 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Care required when drafting SPA claim notices
23 September 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Why the modernised LCIA rules are a welcome update
7 October 2020
by Nick Storrs
Disputes Quick Read: COVID-19 and supply chain disruption – key issues
9 April 2020
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read: High Court orders parties to explore options for 5-week remote trial
15 April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Tomlin Orders – ensuring the confidentiality of settlement terms
27 April 2020
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read: UK's OFSI fines Standard Chartered Bank £20 million for sanctions breaches
21 April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: A different approach to witness evidence
11 March 2020
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Coronavirus - a growth in virtual courts?
17 March 2020
by Stuart Broom
Disputes quick read: climate change activism by litigation
26 February 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Commercial Court's arbitral power shift
21 February 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Court stays evictions during COVID-19 – is this lawful?
2 June 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Will the civil justice system change forever post COVID-19?
16 June 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Retailers reign supreme in Visa and Mastercard proceedings
9 July 2020
Disputes Quick Read: The contra proferentem rule reconsidered?
21 July 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Scope of duty and the SAAMCo counterfactual following Manchester Building Society
3 December 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Facilitating transactions in cryptoassets - Lord Leggatt and the point of commercial law
24 November 2021
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Privy Council clarifies the law on freezing injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings
8 October 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation – what's the latest?
10 January 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Court decisions on the Disclosure Pilot Scheme – the 2021 roundup
20 January 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Assumption of responsibility - tax schemes and investors
22 March 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it
7 April 2022
Related Insights
APP fraud: testing the limits of recovery
by multiple authors
Trust broken, profits returned: Supreme Court rejects hypothetical arguments
by Natalia Faekova and Emma Allen